Birmingham airport APCOA

sammyw84

Hi

I have received a Parking charge notice today dated 14/2/18 by APCOA Parking, stating i was parked on a red route at Birmingham airport on 23/11/17. i did pull over just so my brother could jump in (who has mobility problems an i had my disabled nan in the car.

the notice had 4 little pictures of my car (which is a lease car) that was there a whole 14 seconds.

the fine is for £100 or £50 if paid in 14 days, i am just wondering where i stand as i believe you only have to pay council penalty fines.

any help would be appreciated.

thank you

Coupon-mad

Very easy for a keeper to win with certain appeal wording. Here's one we advised on yesterday:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5796722

You need to read the thread you missed when you hit 'new thread'. See my signature!

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Lega;, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.[/FONT]

sammyw84

hello and thank you for your replies,

i have drawn up a letter could you please advise me if this is sufficiant or if i should anything..
(i am leasing this car)

Dear Sir
PCN No: 123456789
I am writing to you as keeper/leaseer of the vehicle and note the contents of your letter. This debt is
denied. Your letter does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 as it was not
served within the 14 days as required under Schedule 4 of the Act. As such, there is no
keeper liability and you must now take the matter up with the driver. As there is no legal
obligation to name the driver and no moral reason to hand over a friend or family member
to be harassed by a parking company, I decline to do so. You may not make any assumptions
on this.
Further, as this matter is causing myself and my family considerable distress and you no
longer have reasonable cause to hold my data on your system, under Section 10 of the Data
Protection Act you must remove my data from your systems and that of your agents and
confirm you have done so within 21 days. Failure to respond is a breach of the relevant
section of the Data Protection Act and will be reported to the ICO. This may result in
sanctions being taken out against you, including suspension of your licence as a Data
Controller. This could have an adverse effect on your business. You should treat this as a
Formal Section 10 Notification and pass to your Data Controller.
I now consider this matter closed. Do not write to me again, save to confirm your
compliance with the Section 10 Notification.

thank you in advance

Coupon-mad

keeper/leaseer

Should be 'hirer/lessee' but apart from that the appeal is OK to submit - if you must post it, then get free certificate of posting at a PO Counter (obviously not Recorded or Special, NOT signed-for...think about what that lets a PPC not do!).

Not sure why you felt the need to write your own version, when the NEWBIES thread gives you an appeal template that works but no harm done as long as the driver is not divulged.

Also in the NEWBIES thread there is an appeal by Edna Basher, already written specially for lessee/hirer cases, you could have used that! It covers the section of the POFA that they have not met.

Easily winnable for a hirer/lessee, you can't lose.

sammyw84

hi i had already wrote this before i posted on here, so apologies.

Thank you

sammyw84

Evening all so ive had a reply and they have rejected my appeal, what do i do next?
it says thanks for your letter received 15/03/18 against the parking charge notice issued to by us to you on 23/11/17. having carefully considered the evidence provided by you, we must advise your appeal has been unsuccessful on this occasion.
your vehicle was observed stopped on a red route to pick up a passenger, red routes are in operation around the airport site in order to maintain the safety of our passengers, visitors and staff, drivers are prohibited to stop, unload or park on the red routes or zig zag lines which clearly marked around the airport roads vis signage and double red road markings.
a vehicle monitoring and enforcement to enter/exit the vehicle in any circumstance on the airport roads or red route

as per the images your vehicle would have had to pass a no stopping at any time sign, there are over 20 signs around the birmingham international airport advising drivers that this is a no stopping ares.

APCOA have not claimed to, and do not work , issue or seek payment under POFA as this land is covered by bye-laws.

all the enforcement is carried out according to british parking association (BPA) guidelines and APCOA being and approved operator of BPA is authorized to manage and enforce the property on behalf of birmingham international airport. Any vehicles in contravention of the T&C of the birmingham international airport are sent out to DVLA for registered owners information under BPA guidelines.

In response to your comment made in your letter, please note notices only need to be issued within 14 daysif the notice issued mentions ''under protection of freedoms Act'' According to BPA guidelines the maximum permitted time to notify the registered keeper is no more than 28 days after receiving keeper data from DVLA which takes no more than 35 days, once we receive the registered keeper information we issue a notice to the customer, and no more than 6 months after the authorized parking event.

it is our understanding that we have not referred to this act in our documentation we are able to work in accordance with the BPA code of practice (june 2013) which states that we have 28 days to deliver a postal PCN from the date of contravention.

your details were provided by northumbria healthcare trust stating you was the driver of the vehicle therefore you are liable for this PCN.

As your vehicle was parked in contravention of the T&C's of the car park we are satisfied that the notice was correctly issued in accordance with the BPA code of practice and are therefore not able to waiver the charge on this occasion.

it then gives me the options to pay £50 within 14 days or i can make an appeal to POPLA within 28 days


is this the end of the road for me now do i have to pay up?

sorry its long just wanted you to see what was in the letter from them.

thanks

Coupon-mad

Since every single person who appeals v APCOA at POPLA stage here, wins,

and

every hirer/lessee case is also winnable,

I am struggling to understand how you are unsure!

Earlier, I said to you:

Easily winnable for a hirer/lessee, you can't lose.

and now you are about to WIN, you've actually asked:

is this the end of the road for me now do i have to pay up?

Heck no!

You have the easiest appeal to do, simply copy from another APCOA thread who won. Just search the forum for APCOA POPLA Airport

and you can also add that you are in fact the hirer/lessee and the Notice to keeper was not a compliant Notice to Hirer, had none of the enclosures required for hirer liability, so there is no level upon which you can be held liable, since the driver has never been identified.

AND this is an Airport (not 'relevant land') so keepers and hirers can't be held liable anyway!

It is that simple.

You win!

KeithP

And just to add to Coupon-mad's comprehensive advice... be aware that Northumbria Healthcare cannot possibly have told APCOA that you were the driver.
Northumbria Healthcare have no way of knowing who was driving the car at that point in time.

sammyw84

Hi so i am ready to send my appeal, i will of course add all personal details before i send but is this ok?
Also what do i need to send in too as evidence? think ive read somewhere the pictures that APCOA sent me in the letters of my car? or did o miss read it?

POPLA Ref ...................
APCOA Parking PCN no .......................

A notice to keeper was issued on 23rd November 2017 and received by me, the registered keeper of ........ on 14th February 2018 for an alleged contravention of !!!8216;BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE!!!8217;!!!8217; at Birmingham Airport. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

1) APCOA not using POFA 2012!
2) Airport Act 1986
3) Amount demanded is a penalty
4) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
5) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability (ref POPLA case Steve Macallan 6062356150)
6) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
7) Misleading and unclear signage
8) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
9) Photo evidence appears doctored
10) No Grace Period Given (Clause #13 BPA Code of Practice)


1) From their rejection of my initial appeal, it appears that APCOA are attempting to claim the charge is liable to them under airport byelaws. I reject this and put them strictly to proof on which byelaw they claim is broken, and in any case, why this would result in an obligation to pay APCOA.

2) Airport byelaws do not apply to any road to which the public have access, as they are subject to road traffic enactments.

Airport Act 1986
65 Control of road traffic at designated airports
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the road traffic enactments shall apply in relation to roads which are within a designated airport but to which the public does not have access as they apply in relation to roads to which the public has access.

Both the Airport Act and Airport byelaws say that byelaws only apply to roads to which road traffic enactments do not apply

3) Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, and then consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear not ample, and the motorist had not time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

4) If APCOA want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and APCOA have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. Furthermore, the notice to keeper was not received within the maximum 14 day period from the date of the alleged breach. Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 2nd September 2016, and the notice to keeper was received 21 days later on 23rd September 2016.

The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 when you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the !!!8216;reasonable cause!!!8217; you had for asking the DVLA for their details.' The PCN does not provide this information; this does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.!

5) Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.
POPLA assessor Steve Macallan found in 6062356150 in September 2016, that land under statutory control cannot be considered !!!8216;relevant land!!!8217; for the purposes of POFA 2012.
!!!8216;As the site is not located on !!!8216;relevant land!!!8217;, the operator is unable to rely on POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal.!!!8217;

6) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability

!!!8220;There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
"I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.

7) The alleged contravention, according to APCOA, is in 'breach of the terms and conditions of use of the Airport road infrastructure and signs are clearly displayed'. It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly could not be read without stopping, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. APCOA are required to show evidence to the contrary.

I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First Annual POPLA Report 2013: "It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it."

8) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd!!!8217;s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

9) I would also bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle !!!8211; most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper right hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

I would challenge APCOA to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge APCOA that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of coordinates, as they have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).

10) As per section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice: 'You should allow the driver a reasonable 'grace period' in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.' Therefore, if a driver stops for a short period of time to read a sign, they must have the opportunity to leave and not accept the terms of an alleged 'contract'. 90 seconds, I would argue does not breach a fair 'grace period', and therefore APCOA are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

thanks

Coupon-mad

Also what do i need to send in too as evidence?

Nothing, you will win as long as nothing in either appeal, implies who parked. APCOA will give up!

Your dates make no sense:

A notice to keeper was issued on 23rd November 2017 and received by me, the registered keeper of ........ on 14th February 2018

Eh, that's a big gap? Yet your point #4 is clearly copied and you haven't edited it at all:

Specifically, the alleged breach occurred on 2nd September 2016, and the notice to keeper was received 21 days later on 23rd September 2016.

You need to turn off your Smart Punctuation, please, as you keep getting the !!!8211; error!